Obama opposes giving judges power to modify mortgages in bailout deal?

[yurbud]

Two annoying things there: assuming this is accurate, why would Obama oppose the one provision that directly helps the people screwed by Wall St. scammers?

Why would this idea be a ''bargaining'' chip to the Democrats instead of an essential piece of the solution?

It seems like as usual, the Democrats are letting the Bushies play the tune and they dance. I wouldn't trust Paulson and Bernanke on finance anymore than Condi or Cheney on foreign policy.

Frank said the primary remaining point of contention between Democrats and Republicans is a proposal to give bankruptcy judges new power to modify mortgages for troubled homeowners, an idea that is widely viewed as a bargaining chip. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has said the provision, which is fiercely opposed by the banking industry, should not be included in the bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092500268_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008092600233&s_pos=

[OregonBlue]

1. No, he said it did not belong in this legislation but needed to addressed reasonably after

the crisis is past.

[Romulox]

7. Yep. Just like those NAFTA "side deals". Just give them what they want! They'll do right buy us!

:puke:

[yurbud]

13. if it isn't tied to bailout it won't happen. Wall St.

Needs a beat down, hard.

[jflood1016]

2. Here is my guess...

I believe that the Obama campaign is saying this in order to simply get the bailout passed. He has said repeatedly that it is important to get a bill that is clean and issues like this could be addressed in later legislation.

[yurbud]

4. then that is a gross mistake. Just giving them money is like doing the same for a drug addict

it's going to go right up their nose or in their arm.

Or in this case, into anonymous off-shore accounts.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Obama doesn't want to attach things to the bailout that will slow down

its passage--that can be separate legislation.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. No he opposed putting it in this bill as a compromise to get the bill passed.

But now that the Republicans have once again demonstrated that they never do anything in good faith, everything is back on the table. There is no reason for the Democratic Party to go forward with a compromise bill that the Republicans will not support.

[depakid]

9. Then let's hope he doesn't blink again

This isn't Harvard law review.

[ljm2002]

18. Why compromise with crooks?

Geez Louise -- those f***ing crooks should have NO, ZERO LEVERAGE.

Instead they are as usual being allowed to dictate terms.

This is seriously pissing me off.

[Marie26]

6. The article says why

Because it's fiercely opposed by the banking industry.

[Romulox]

10. You got it: Obama, Dodd, Kerry top recipients of financial PAC money. nt

[Marie26]

11. "I love the market."

Obama in July 2008: "Look, I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market."

Number 1 contributor to Obama campaign: Goldman Sachs - $748,880

JPMorgan Chase & Co - $493,469
Citigroup Inc - $467,849
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac - $105,849

Securities & Investment - $11,143,792

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009638

[Romulox]

12. "I believe in the Free Market. I believe in Capitalism. I believe in Free Trade." - Barack Obama

-B. Obama.

(Unless one of his contributors stands to lose money. Then the free market is broken!)

[earth mom]

14. There you have it. Obama is blowing it here-think of all the votes he'd gain by sticking up

for the people in this instance.

[L. Coyote]

15. McCain's top FIVE contributors are Financial houses!!

Does this indicate they oppose the Republican economic policies? I suppose it does.
But, employees of the finance sector contribute to both parties.

Who do their PACs send money to? The majority party. D'oh!!

2	Lawyers/Law Firms	$7,959,446
3	Securities & Investment	$6,893,293
4	Real Estate	        $6,796,844
5	Misc Finance	        $3,907,413

Top contributors:

Merrill Lynch 	$298,413
Citigroup Inc 	$269,251
Morgan Stanley 	$233,272
Goldman Sachs 	$208,395
JPMorgan Chase 	$179,975

Donor Demographics
Percent Number & Total Amount
Female	28.0%	25261	$34,169,121
Male	72.0%	67854	$87,977,012

[Marie26]

16. Because BOTH parties are backed & funded by Wall Street.

We've got to be realistic here.

[L. Coyote]

17. Indeed. Just started that thread in GD-P

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7197999&mesg_id=7197999

[sharesunited]

8. It's ok to let this go. Impossible to uniformly administrate and poses an impediment

to future lending.

Mortgages acquired by Treasury can voluntarily be modified to bring them back into performance if they are salvagable.